There are some authors I've pretty much just given up commenting on and Dr. Lanza is one of them. He has a new article: What Are We? New Experiments Suggest We're Not Purely Physical that pretty much sticks to his standard template.
I thought I had seen it all in terms of Huffington Post censorship but here is a fascinating example from Huffpo User JohnFromCensornati:
My comment cleared the moderators at 8:30 PM EST and disappeared 30 - 45 minutes later. Believe it or not, it consisted of nothing but things that Lanza himself has said. Here it is:
-------- Begin Comment ----------------
New experiments suggest that part of us exists outside of the physical world.
Experiments suggest the answer is simpler than anyone thought. Without the glue of consciousness, time essentially reboots.
Experiments suggest that you're not an object -- you are your consciousness.
A series of experiments hold the answer to why we exist.
Experiments suggest that life is not just a one-time deal.
Will the wicked be punished? Yes, according to a new interpretation of recent experiments.
-------- End Comment ----------------
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Quantum Censorship
There is a new article on Quantum Consciousness by Michael Bernard Beckwith.
Here is a comment thread that got deleted. This is one of those where I saw the comments and then they disappeared:
-------- Begin Comments --------------
RedDogBear Commented Jul 07, 2010 at 14:00:34 in Religion
“What exactly IS "Quantum consciousness THEORY"? I've never seen any actual basic definition, just a lot of musings about how the Internet is cool and bringing us all together and how quantum entanglement proves we are all spirits. BTW, I agree with the first two but don't think they have anything to do with quantum anything and I think the last one is false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what quantum (physics) theory is really all about.”
DrBlizzardo replied on Jul 07, 2010 at 14:25:19
“Wow. This is the first time I've seen a post allowed that called the author's knowledge of quantum physics into question.
Generally they allow comments by the gullible, the clueless and the ignorant, but if one of we scientist who DO know something about quantum physics points out the sheer nonsense and rank ridicularity of many of the assertions and suppositions made, or that perhaps the author does not know quantum physics in general and that there is little or no basis in science for the wild assertions of authors like Beckwith, Lanza and Chopra in these pages in particular, your comments get whacked.
The gullible get a platform, the scientists are muzzled.
Why? These comment pages are for the glorification of the authors, not the free exchange of ideas and information between the readers.
Fortunately, most of us cross-post our comments on Digg, StumbleUpon, Tumblr, etc...
But it is still a shame it is HuffPo's policy to muzzle scientists in order to appease authors who may be only selling ignorance to the gullible.”
-------- End Comments --------------
My "spidey sense" as to what moderators will tolerate is getting more fine tuned. As soon as I saw Dr. Blizzardo's comment I had a feeling that both his reply and my original comment would be gone soon.
Here is a comment thread that got deleted. This is one of those where I saw the comments and then they disappeared:
-------- Begin Comments --------------
RedDogBear Commented Jul 07, 2010 at 14:00:34 in Religion
“What exactly IS "Quantum consciousness THEORY"? I've never seen any actual basic definition, just a lot of musings about how the Internet is cool and bringing us all together and how quantum entanglement proves we are all spirits. BTW, I agree with the first two but don't think they have anything to do with quantum anything and I think the last one is false and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what quantum (physics) theory is really all about.”
DrBlizzardo replied on Jul 07, 2010 at 14:25:19
“Wow. This is the first time I've seen a post allowed that called the author's knowledge of quantum physics into question.
Generally they allow comments by the gullible, the clueless and the ignorant, but if one of we scientist who DO know something about quantum physics points out the sheer nonsense and rank ridicularity of many of the assertions and suppositions made, or that perhaps the author does not know quantum physics in general and that there is little or no basis in science for the wild assertions of authors like Beckwith, Lanza and Chopra in these pages in particular, your comments get whacked.
The gullible get a platform, the scientists are muzzled.
Why? These comment pages are for the glorification of the authors, not the free exchange of ideas and information between the readers.
Fortunately, most of us cross-post our comments on Digg, StumbleUpon, Tumblr, etc...
But it is still a shame it is HuffPo's policy to muzzle scientists in order to appease authors who may be only selling ignorance to the gullible.”
-------- End Comments --------------
My "spidey sense" as to what moderators will tolerate is getting more fine tuned. As soon as I saw Dr. Blizzardo's comment I had a feeling that both his reply and my original comment would be gone soon.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Wink, wink,...
The last post was an example of how any comment that talked about Huffpo or the moderation policy was almost certain to be censored. Here is another example, where even just alluding to the policy gets you censored (click the image for full size if you have trouble reading it).
Monday, July 5, 2010
First rule of Huffpo: Don't talk about Huffpo
Here is an interesting thread that was censored today. As I've tried to reverse engineer the Huffpo censorship rules one thing I've noticed is that most comments that in any way talk about the censorship policy or indeed even the Huffpo site itself almost always get censored. To me this is one of the most egregious things about the whole policy. If we are really interested in creating a new media, an alternative to the corporate controlled newspapers, cable news, network news, etc. then I think one of the most essential qualities would be a willingness for us to discuss the medium itself. Personally, I've come to believe for quite some time that Ms. Huffington is just interested in being the electronic version of the New York Times, with a lot less science and a lot more new age woo and People magazine. Here is the thread with an introduction from James Ballard:
Huff "moderators" (or the author) just censored an entire thread between myself and a new fan. The first and reply posts ("ZumaBlue's reply) were already published over the weekend, then when I replied and fanned "ZumaBlue", the entire thread was censored !
Why ?
James Ballard
Channeling Erik: Conversations With My Son in the Afterlife
@ "ZumaBlue"
12:55 PM CST
Fanned.
...Furthermore, the fact that Huff is enabling her is also sad and in direct violation of the health boundaries you are addressing. It's both exploitive and pathetic. It gives me shivers to think that this woman is an "MD". I pity the "patients" within her sphere of "medical practice". Just how objective in diagnosing and treatments can this "MD" be in dispensing sound medical practice while at the same time she solicits "mediums" ?
Outrageous. Sad . And pathetic.
J.B.
7/5/10
Huff "moderators" (or the author) just censored an entire thread between myself and a new fan. The first and reply posts ("ZumaBlue's reply) were already published over the weekend, then when I replied and fanned "ZumaBlue", the entire thread was censored !
Why ?
James Ballard
Channeling Erik: Conversations With My Son in the Afterlife
James Ballard 06:17 PM on 7/03/2010
[ 2nd posting ]
"MJK NL"
5:15 PM CST
Sad. This "MD" is in total shutdown mode : complete denial.
A better therapy for her would be to read a book, as opposed to enabling herself with "mediums" and formulating these delusions on a public blog. Catharsis ? I don't think so. Denial ? Definitely.
And why is this blog in "living" and not in "religion", where it belongs ??
J.B.
7/3/10
"MJK NL"
5:15 PM CST
Sad. This "MD" is in total shutdown mode : complete denial.
A better therapy for her would be to read a book, as opposed to enabling herself with "mediums" and formulating these delusions on a public blog. Catharsis ? I don't think so. Denial ? Definitely.
And why is this blog in "living" and not in "religion", where it belongs ??
J.B.
7/3/10
My sympathies were with this grieving family possibly being exploited by a "medium", but now it's with other vulnerable, mournful people logging onto this blog now being exploited by a mother who has taken up the reigns and is now "channeling" her deceased son - herself. Telling people that this is her "sons" work, fortune telling. Healthy boundaries seem to be completely erased all for some personal need.
Some people will go to any length to hear, what they desperately want and desire to hear. To absolve themselves of guilt, anger, fear, grief. All perspective long lost -
Some people will go to any length to hear, what they desperately want and desire to hear. To absolve themselves of guilt, anger, fear, grief. All perspective long lost -
@ "ZumaBlue"
12:55 PM CST
Fanned.
...Furthermore, the fact that Huff is enabling her is also sad and in direct violation of the health boundaries you are addressing. It's both exploitive and pathetic. It gives me shivers to think that this woman is an "MD". I pity the "patients" within her sphere of "medical practice". Just how objective in diagnosing and treatments can this "MD" be in dispensing sound medical practice while at the same time she solicits "mediums" ?
Outrageous. Sad . And pathetic.
J.B.
7/5/10
Friday, July 2, 2010
An Interesting thread that got cut off Part 2
This is part two. For reasons of formatting and my pathetic skills in HTML I had to divide this up into two posts. For the beginning of this thread see Part 1 below. My reply to the end of part 1 was published but TheWM's reply below was one of those that I could see and tried replying to several times only to realize that his reply never really was published:
RedDogBear "And yet you still think he was as bad as Hitler?
Hm. One of us is surely missing something."
I'm talking about a moral evaluation. Stalin ruthlessly killed millions of his own people in the Gulags. He created a climate of fear and paranoia through the Soviet bloc countries and he ruled those countries through intimidation.
The fact that he was also used as a bogey man by the right wing US and that they inflated the threat he posed doesn't matter much when evaluating his morality. Its analogous to Sadam Hussein. He was never a serious threat to the US and he was also overblown as an external enemy. That doesn't mean he wasn't a murderous tyrant.
Hm. One of us is surely missing something."
I'm talking about a moral evaluation. Stalin ruthlessly killed millions of his own people in the Gulags. He created a climate of fear and paranoia through the Soviet bloc countries and he ruled those countries through intimidation.
The fact that he was also used as a bogey man by the right wing US and that they inflated the threat he posed doesn't matter much when evaluating his morality. Its analogous to Sadam Hussein. He was never a serious threat to the US and he was also overblown as an external enemy. That doesn't mean he wasn't a murderous tyrant.
TheWM "Stalin ruthlessly killed millions of his own people in the Gulags."
What really happened in the Gulag? I for one do not trust Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's account of things. He was a pretty fervent Orthodox Christian and saw everything through that prism.
There are a lot of wildly inflated numbers circulating when it comes to tallying up all of Stalin's victims, a lot of misinformation. I think it may be a while before a really reliable and accurate history of the Soviet Union is written.
Clearly, Stalin did many very bad things. But he also took over the Soviet Union when it was still mostly agrarian and illiterate, and when he died three decades later it was mostly literate and industrialized.
When Hitler took over Germany it was a world leader in science, industry and culture, and when he died twelve years later it was a smoking pile of rubble, its citizens' heads were full of racist propoganda, Germany had started a world war in which over 50 million people died, and millions of men, women and children -- including tiny babies -- had been systematically gassed and shot.
What really happened in the Gulag? I for one do not trust Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's account of things. He was a pretty fervent Orthodox Christian and saw everything through that prism.
There are a lot of wildly inflated numbers circulating when it comes to tallying up all of Stalin's victims, a lot of misinformation. I think it may be a while before a really reliable and accurate history of the Soviet Union is written.
Clearly, Stalin did many very bad things. But he also took over the Soviet Union when it was still mostly agrarian and illiterate, and when he died three decades later it was mostly literate and industrialized.
When Hitler took over Germany it was a world leader in science, industry and culture, and when he died twelve years later it was a smoking pile of rubble, its citizens' heads were full of racist propoganda, Germany had started a world war in which over 50 million people died, and millions of men, women and children -- including tiny babies -- had been systematically gassed and shot.
An Interesting thread that got cut off Part 1
Here is the first part of an interesting thread that got cut off just as we were getting into what IMO was some very interesting discussion. I think TheWM was wrong, wrong, wrong, (and I'm sure he thinks the same about me) but his arguments were more interesting and cogent than 99% of the users I talk to on Huffpo. This is one of the things that I find most annoying about The Huffington Post. You can talk about the latest star on American Idol to your heart's content but as soon as you start getting into an interesting political discussion you get cut off because you may use a forbidden word or phrase such as genocide, holocaust, or zionism.
yep, stalin hitler and roosevelt were religously motivated. Must have missed those speeches.
As a leftist atheist I'm used to debating against the Stalin-was
Well we agree putting Roosevelt there was ridiculous. But I'm about as left wing as they come and I think Hitler and Stalin were more or less the same. Hitler was more psychotic I think especially toward the end. And Stalin more the controlled sociopath.
Now if we were comparing say Lenin or Trotsky to Hitler I would agree with you. That's about as sensible as comparing Roosevelt to Hitler. Lenin could be ruthless in consolidating his power but if you read actual history George Washington had his ruthless moments too. But Stalin was just a butcher IMO.
Now if we were comparing say Lenin or Trotsky to Hitler I would agree with you. That's about as sensible as comparing Roosevelt to Hitler. Lenin could be ruthless in consolidating his power but if you read actual history George Washington had his ruthless moments too. But Stalin was just a butcher IMO.
One more point. I do agree that the fear of Stalin as a threat to the world has been vastly overblown. He never had the chance and was never all that interested in conquering the world. He was concerned with (and understandably given the devastation the Russian people suffered in WWII) with securing Russia's security against future invasions.
"I do agree that the fear of Stalin as a threat to the world has been vastly overblown. He never had the chance and was never all that interested in conquering the world."
And yet you still think he was as bad as Hitler?
Hm. One of us is surely missing something.
And yet you still think he was as bad as Hitler?
Hm. One of us is surely missing something.
Not all whores are equally respectable
From a new Huffpo user who has had enough of the arbitrary censorship policy:
I had a perfect example of the “bot” phenomenon today, July 1, 2010. There is an article about Helen Reddy calling out Madonna. Specifically, the headline was “Madonna has made us all whores,” and they used the word “whore” in the article as well. Yet (I’m sure you can see this coming) no comment I made got posted because I included the word “whore” in it. Funny thing was, I was making a rather pithy comment about something tangential yet relevant, specifically:
“So basically, Reddy is saying that the classic Madonna – Whore complex is no longer valid... since the two have apparently merged into one.”
Well, socially of course, the M/W complex is exactly what Madonna spent her early career attacking. I thought the comment hugely appropriate, but alas, hp’s bot did not.
I've had so many similar examples. Article that discuss the most tawdry subjecs and comments that arbitrarily get "moderated" for using less offensive language than what was in the original article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
